Malayan Insurance Co., v. Phil. First Insurance Co., Inc. et al, G.R. No. 184300, July 11, 2012


Wyeth procured Marine Policy No. MAR 13797 (Marine Policy) from respondent Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. (Philippines First) to secure its interest over its own products.

Wyeth executed its annual contract of carriage with Reputable Forwarder Services. It turned out, however, that the contract was not signed by Wyeth’s representative/s. Nevertheless, it was admittedly signed by Reputable’s  representatives, the terms thereof faithfully observed by the parties and, the same contract of carriage had been annually executed by the parties every year since 1989. The contract also required Reputable to secure an insurance policy on Wyeth’s goods. Thus, on February 11, 1994, Reputable signed a Special Risk Insurance Policy (SR Policy) with petitioner Malayan for the amount of P1,000,000.00.

In 1994, during the effectivity of the Marine Policy and SR Policy, the truck carrying Wyeth’s products was hijacked by about 10 armed men. Philippines First, paid Wyeth P2,133,257.00 as indemnity. Philippines First then demanded reimbursement from Reputable, having been subrogated to the rights of Wyeth by virtue of the payment. The latter, however, ignored the demand.

Phil First filed a complaint against Reputable. Reputable claimed that it is a private carrier. It also claimed that it cannot be made liable under the contract of carriage with Wyeth since the contract was not signed by Wyeth’s representative and that the cause of the loss was force majeure, i.e., the hijacking incident. Subsequently, Reputable impleaded Malayan as third-party defendant in an effort to collect the amount covered in the SR Policy.

Disclaiming any liability, Malayan argued, among others, that under Section 5 of the SR Policy, the insurance does not cover any loss or damage to property which at the time of the happening of such loss or damage is insured by any marine policy and that the SR Policy expressly excluded third-party liability.

Section 5. INSURANCE WITH OTHER COMPANIES.—The insurance does not cover any loss or damage to property which at the time of the happening of such loss or damage is insured by or would but for the existence of this policy, be insured by any Fire or Marine policy or policies except in respect of any excess beyond the amount which would have been payable under the Fire or Marine policy or policies had this insurance not been effected.”

“12. OTHER INSURANCE CLAUSE. If at the time of any loss or damage happening to any property hereby insured, there be any other subsisting insurance or insurances, whether effected by the insured or by any other person or persons, covering the same property, the company shall not be liable to pay or contribute more than its ratable proportion of such loss or damage.”

RTC rendered its Decision11 finding Reputable liable to Philippines First for the amount of indemnity. In turn, Malayan was found by the RTC to be liable to Reputable to the extent of the policy coverage.

Malayan argued that inasmuch as there was already a marine policy issued by Philippines First securing the same subject matter against loss and that since the monetary coverage/value of the Marine Policy is more than enough to indemnify the hijacked cargo, Philippines First alone must bear the loss.

the “difference between an ‘other insurance clause’ and an ‘over insurance clause’.”

WON is there double insurance in this case such that either Section 5 or Section 12 of the SR Policy may be applied.

By the express provision of Section 93 of the Insurance Code, double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect to the same subject and interest and risk. The requisites in order for double insurance to arise are as follows:

1. The person insured is the same;

2. Two or more insurers insuring separately;

3. There is identity of subject matter;

4. There is identity of interest insured; and

5. There is identity of the risk or peril insured against.

In the present case, while it is true that the Marine Policy and the SR Policy were both issued over the same subject matter, i.e. goods belonging to Wyeth, and both covered the same peril insured against, it is, however, beyond cavil that the said policies were issued to two different persons or entities. It is undisputed that Wyeth is the recognized insured of Philippines First under its Marine Policy, while Reputable is the recognized insured of Malayan under the SR Policy. The fact that Reputable procured Malayan’s SR Policy over the goods of Wyeth pursuant merely to the stipulated requirement under its contract of carriage with the latter does not make Reputable a mere agent of Wyeth in obtaining the said SR Policy.

The interest of Wyeth over the property subject matter of both insurance contracts is also different and distinct from that of Reputable’s. The policy issued by Philippines First was in consideration of the legal and/or equitable interest of Wyeth over its own goods. On the other hand, what was issued by Malayan to Reputable was over the latter’s insurable interest over the safety of the goods, which may become the basis of the latter’s liability in case of loss or damage to the property and falls within the contemplation of Section 15 of the Insurance Code.

Therefore, even though the two concerned insurance policies were issued over the same goods and cover the same risk, there arises no double insurance since they were issued to two different persons/entities having distinct insurable interests. Necessarily, over insurance by double insurance cannot likewise exist. Hence, as correctly ruled by the RTC and CA, neither Section 5 nor Section 12 of the SR Policy can be applied.

Please check out our tags for more personal case digests!

abuse of rights (2) Administrative Law (5) Agency (4) alteration (2) Article 19 (2) Article 26 of the Family Code (2) article 36 (4) Article 148 of the Family Code (2) Article 153 of the Family Code (3) Bill of Rights (3) Bright Future Technologies Inc. (1) capacity to contract marriage (2) capital (4) Case Digest (327) Chain of Custody (2) Civil Code (20) civil law (56) Civil Procedure (49) commercial law (80) Company Policies (2) Conflicts of Law (33) Constitutional Law (25) Constitutional Rights of Employers and Employees (2) Corporate Law (2) court of appeals (9) Credit Card (2) Credit Transactions (7) criminal law (3) criminal procedure (9) Different Kind Of Obligations (2) dismissal (2) divorce (2) Donation (2) Dreamwork (2) easements (2) ec2 (2) Effect of Partial payment (2) ejusdem generis (2) Election Law (2) Eminent Domain (4) Employee’s Rights (2) evidence (2) Expropriation (2) Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation (2) family code (19) family home (4) Foreclosure (2) foreign divorce (2) forgery (2) G.R. No. 145391 (1) income (5) income taxation (4) Injunction (2) instagram (2) Insurable Interest (2) Insurance (54) Intellectual Property (6) japan (5) Judicial review (2) Just Compensation (2) labor law (37) Law School (318) Local Government Code (2) marriage (12) NAIA Terminal 3 (2) National Labor Relations Commission (7) negotiable instrument (10) Oblicon (19) Obligation and Contracts (25) Payment through Agent (2) Persons and Family Relations (21) Philippine Airlines (2) Philippine Airlines Inc. (2) Philippine citizenship (2) Police power (2) Political Law (33) Ponente (7) Premium Payment (2) programming (2) property (8) Provisional Remedies (2) Psychological Incapacity (4) public officers (2) Reinsurance (3) Remedial Law (56) Residence (2) Rights to Security of Tenure and Due Process (2) security (2) Seven (7) Cardinal Rights of Workers (2) shrines (2) situs (3) situs of taxation (3) Social justice (7) Sources of Labor Rights and Obligations (4) Succession (7) Taxation Law (6) temple (2) tokyo (3) TYPES of Employees (2) what is income (2)